Vaseem Iqbal Kapadia Versus Union of India & Others

2015 (7) TMI 301 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Waiver of pre deposit - Whether, Tribunal in passing order of two different amounts by way of predeposit and bank guarantee in the Stay Petition for waiver of predeposit of penalty amounts to non application of mind, self contradictory and therefore, .....

nge at more places than one the Tribunal has observed that the main appeal arising out of the adjudication dated 22.1.2010 and the subsequent addendum dated 15.2.2010 raises several questions of facts and law. After noting the rival contentions, the .....

quire deeper scrutiny. The Tribunal has observed that it is convinced that the appellant has an arguable case. In the circumstances, we do not think why the conditional order was passed. The direction to deposit 10% of the total amount of penalty and .....

onsider several grounds and indepth, then we do not see justification for imposition of such conditions. - Stay granted. - Fera Appeal No. 4 of 2015, Appeal No. 108 of 2010 - Dated:- 29-6-2015 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And G. S. Kulkarani,JJ. For the App .....

eading thereof, we are of the opinion that the appeal raises substantial question of law. It is admitted on the following substantial question of law: - (A) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the Appellate Trib .....

orate is already having seized Indian currency which was not confiscated and the foreign currencies could not have been seized through addendum without affording opportunity ? 2. Although the order under challenge is an interim order, having perused .....

Tribunal has observed that the main appeal arising out of the adjudication dated 22.1.2010 and the subsequent addendum dated 15.2.2010 raises several questions of facts and law. After noting the rival contentions, the Tribunal in paragraph 7 has obse .....